Citation: R v ATTAR, Ali; HAWAT, Hasan & HUYNH, John [2010] NSWDC 199
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 June 2010
Judge(s): Nicholson SC DCJ
Background
In October 2008, three men with different roles carried out a coordinated robbery of approximately $81,000 in weekly cash takings from a Bing Lee electronics store in Bankstown. The scheme was enabled by inside assistance: one offender was an assistant manager at the store who disclosed the store's banking procedures, identified the victim, and orchestrated the timing of the handover of cash.
The planner and recruiter was a customer who had developed a relationship with the store employee. He enlisted a gym acquaintance to act as getaway driver and a colleague from a car wash to act as the physical robber. The victim, an administrative officer, was approached from behind outside the store and the cash bag was seized at the point of an object pressed against her back. Only approximately $5,000 of the $81,000 was recovered.
All three offenders before the court pleaded guilty. A fourth alleged offender (who carried out the physical robbery) had not yet been tried at the time of sentencing and was referred to only by initials throughout the judgment.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for each offender, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence and each offender's individual role?
- How should the court weigh competing sentencing considerations, including community protection, rehabilitation, deterrence, and parity between co-offenders?
- Whether special circumstances existed to justify a non-standard ratio between the non-parole period and the balance of term (that is, the portion of a sentence served after release on parole).
- How much discount each offender was entitled to for an early guilty plea.
Decision
The court described the robbery as a serious example of the offence. The inside assistance from the store employee was treated as a significant aggravating feature, as was the careful pre-planning, the multiple participants, and the substantial sum taken. The court acknowledged that the relatively limited violence used (compared with some armed robberies) and the early guilty pleas operated in each offender's favour.
The court assessed each offender's criminality by reference to their specific role. The store employee who provided inside information and orchestrated the robbery received the heaviest sentence, reflecting that the entire scheme depended on his participation. The planner and recruiter, who conceived and organised the operation, received a slightly lighter sentence. The getaway driver, who had less planning involvement and was motivated partly by personal financial difficulty, received the most lenient outcome, with his sentence suspended.
Parity between co-offenders was considered throughout. The court also assessed each offender's subjective circumstances, including personal background, prospects of rehabilitation, and the absence of prior serious criminal history. The suspended sentence for the driver was expressly conditioned on compliance with a good behaviour bond, and the court noted that a failure to comply would weigh against him in any future breach proceedings.
Orders Made
- John Huynh (inside man and assistant manager): convicted; sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 22 months and a balance of term of 8 months; sentence to be served by way of periodic detention, commencing 23 June 2010.
- Ali Attar (planner, recruiter, and loot coordinator): convicted; sentenced to 2 years and 2 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months and a balance of term of 6 months; sentence to be served by way of periodic detention, commencing 23 June 2010.
- Hasan Hawat (getaway driver): convicted; sentenced to 20 months imprisonment; sentence suspended on condition of a good behaviour bond for 20 months from the date of judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Inside assistance from a store employee was treated as a serious aggravating factor, the court finding that the entire robbery depended on the information and timing provided from within the organisation.
- Where co-offenders have materially different roles in a joint criminal enterprise, sentencing outcomes may diverge significantly even where all parties are convicted of the same offence.
- A coordinated, pre-planned robbery involving multiple participants and a substantial sum ($81,000) was characterised as a serious example of the offence, notwithstanding that the level of physical violence was relatively limited.
- Early guilty pleas operated as a mitigating factor across all three offenders and contributed to the non-custodial and periodic detention outcomes rather than full-time imprisonment.
- Suspension of a sentence on a good behaviour bond is not a consequence-free outcome: the District Court explicitly noted that non-compliance would be a factor weighing against the offender in any future breach proceedings.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Cases:
- Regina v Rause (unreported, NSWCCA, 8 August 1992)
- Gladue v The Queen [1999] 1 SCR 688
- R v Rushby [1977] NSWLR 597
- R v Hayes [1984] 1 NSWLR 740
- R v Cuthbert (1967) 2 NSWR 329
Legislation: No specific legislation was cited in the material provided.